However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court on February 2, 2010, and on January 13, 2012, the Seoul Western District Court was sentenced to 2.5 million won due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court on February 2, 201, and was sentenced to 2.5 million won due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

The Defendant, without a car driver’s license, driven D E300 cars at approximately 500 meters prior to the “Korea-si Lone Star,” located in the port Dong-dong, Seoyang-gu, Mangdong-gu, Goyang-si, Mangyang-si, Seoul, at around 00:20 on October 13, 2013, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.092%, and driving D E300 cars at approximately 500 meters prior to the road of “Korea-si, Mangwon.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses.

3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

4. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

5. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

6. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of serving multiple punishments due to drunk driving and unlicensed driving in the past. In particular, if a risk of causing serious injury to human and material injury exists, it is an element for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.